The article was kept by Dana boomer 00:15, 28 November 2012 [1].
I am nominating this featured article to be delisted because the edit history may contain copyvio issues and the page will never be eligible for TFA. I don't see any need for discussion; should be a straightforward delisting. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 00:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I peer reviewed and supported this article at FAC when it was riddled with copyvios (and did not catch them). I then worked with Truthkeeper to clean it and we checked every source and rewrote the article. While the silver lining of the experience was getting to know and work with Truthkeeper, the whole copyvio mess left a bad taste in my mouth and I have not taken an article to FAC since. As I see it, there are two issues here:
I hope this helps. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Cross post from WT:FAR, which is a better place to have this conversation. Mark Arsten ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm sorry for weighing in so late-- here are my three cents for what they're worth.
Additional closing note - The consensus seems to be that the article as it currently stands is of FA quality, and that the edit history meets current WP standards for copyright compliance. However, there also appears to be a consensus that the article should not be run at TFA, possibly ever, but at least until copyright issues in related articles are cleared. I would hope that interested editors would help TK to clean up these articles. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Dana boomer 12:33, 16 November 2012 [8].
I'm bringing this to FAR primarily over concerns about outdated information and poor sourcing. There are currently maintenance templates ( Template:Out of date & Template:Update) on the "Backward compatibility" and "Wii Family Edition" sections. I counted 8 paragraphs without citations. The prose quality is also well below featured quality at this point, and the reference formatting is a mess too. A message on the article's talk page about the article's issues a couple weeks ago went unanswered. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Here's my comments:
JJ98 ( Talk / Contribs) 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Question - Can we get an update on how work is going on this? Is it about finished or should it be moved to the FARC stage? Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:23, 6 November 2012 [10].
Discussion raised 6 days ago on talk page with no action.
The article was promoted to FA in 2006, and kept through review in 2008. It is clearly unchecked in the past 4 years, as are many of the older-generation FAs. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply
User:TenPoundHammer wrote on my talk page on 12 August 2012 (UTC):
JJ98 ( Talk / Contribs) 12:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC) reply
At this point, I believe the article cleanup has addressed every actionable comment that has been raised. RossPatterson ( talk) 15:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:25, 6 November 2012 [11].
Since its promotion in 2006, this article has some concerns:
JJ98 ( Talk / Contribs) 20:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply